I'd be interested in what the compelling numbers are, i.e., the thrust of the analysis. The current policy/change doesn't follow simply and easily from the premise of revenue. Some general points:

1)
Why now, why immediately? Revenue does not necessarily dictate why the current change was implemented in the WAY that it was implemented. Revenue can still dictate the change, but why couldn't it have been handled differently? Did NW want to avoid having fliers locking in upgradable fares, etc.? Moreover, it seems as if this "revenue" impetus was either known well ahead of time, and NW decided to give no notice, or NW has "sudden" business forcasting revelations that arise. Again, NW, why the MANNER of the change/notice? It certainly could/should have been done differently.

2)
I do not see why NW cannot implement a restrictive policy (somewhat akin to CO's domestic upgrade (via miles) policy), in which perhaps a few seats be allocated for upgrade (on any fare, using miles) while most are held as revenue seats until the day of departure. I cannot see why this wouldn't be more efficient in both providing the revenue, while providing for frequent flyers with seats (and this also provides NW with revenue). Help me understand this.

3) What is NW's current competitive analysis of its WBC produce as compared to CO's BF and that of other carriers? Of course if NW has no competition on certain routes, then fine. Please justify why a particular fare with 40k miles for an upgrade to WBC would be of similar value with 40k miles on other arlines? (even with CO's 30 day "maybe upgrade policy" it would seem that BF is far superior to WBC)? i.e., is WBC really a good value, at this point, for most people?

4)
What is egregious about the fare/upgrade change is that upgrade miles just devalued by as much as 50 percent, in some cases, given that one would now have to pay twice the fare price.

Certainly there are those who quip that it's just revenue and that's too bad and (perhaps) one has no right to complain. "That's just business." Well, this is fallacious. Airlines got to make a buck, certainly, but frequent flyer programs are part of that buck, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Moreover, changes can be changed (even ones predicated on revenue) when the customer complains, because it's the customer who ulitmately dictates revenue. Let's see if NW knows its customers as well as it thinks.

NW, you certainly have the right to make a change, and to do so at the expense of your frequent flyers (in the most direct sense). However, given some of the aforementioned points (and others) I am dubious that your revenue argument will prove itself true, or that at leaset it could not be maximized further without the current change/policy (negative) for WPerks members. It is somewhat unreasonable to really be given the proof of your analysis, but the questions begged to be asked.